1:09 dont feel bad, demian you just have to find your niche i was lucky enough to keep my niche even when the spitfire came into popularity
Well, <S>! Demian. Everyone knows that I'm a italian' planes lover, and AFAIK and AFAIR all sources give that C.202 could hold their won against Spits and P-51s and whatever allieds could put in the air. It had a turning speed as equal to Spit9, and was more nimble and agile than it. Climb speed was almost superior than Spit,only weakness was the light armament! Many P-51 pilots said that C.205 was a great opponent, with turn radius and turning speed much better than 51's. It had great armament, excellent climb speed, was very agile, had no weakness aparent. Could hold their own against every new plane allieds put in the air. Allied test pilots said that both C.202 and C.205 were excellent planes to fly, great gunnery plataform, had great handling, agility, great turning hability, with the last (205) the better of them. Only comparable aircraft was the italian Fiat G.55 Centauro. Mid-to late war italian planes was great. This is not what I see here. C.202 fly like a cow, ridiculous stall carachteristics, turning habilities to overturn only a P-51 or P-47 and it has bad climb speed. Same goes on C.205. I think no one complains about them 'cause no one flies them. I always see arena full of Spits, LAs, Kis (61,44,84). No one flies Ki-43 anymore, C.202 and C.205. It's easier to fly Bf-109G10. Can u pls remake FM and DM carachteristics?? Both planes have "one shot kill me" damage model. I know that G.55 is actually impossible to have in FH, but what I'm asking isn't a thing of another world. As Juutilainen said, "I never was outclimbed by a LA-5/5-F/5-FN while flying my Bf-109G2." ..... [EDIT]: For antred --> ty man, I already corrected it
You mean it had superior turn rate and turn radius, right? Because I can't see the Italian plane being faster than the P-51.
That's true. It's sad that there is so little diversity in the planes you encounter in the arena. With a few exceptions every here and there, it's generally just the usual suspects.
KI61 seems to have improved from 2 years ago but J2M seems to turn a bit too well and feels slower than it should be. It should be faster and not as agile.
i dont think it's an issue, the most i can find is mapping trim to joystick buttons rather than stick axes and i dont think it would allow you to turn any tighter than you normally could, because the same stall limitations would apply, you'd just get to that pitch faster maybe it could be used at low speeds where the flaps on some planes reduce pitch authority, but i'm not concerned about it
Good work on the research. The planes are getting closer together and I am finding it a lot harder recently to exploit certain plane's that are largely lame but have one advantage in a certain position of the flight envelope. That was a big source of enjoyment in Warbirds.
+1 But, for big map (like big Europe - my favorite map), need 20-30 players, more - better. Mb next TOD - set this map?
i've found a way to compute the weight of aircraft on FH, though i'll say right off the bat that it has some error if you do some mathematical gymnastics with the lift equation you get this: L/(L+delta W) = (v1^2)/(v2^2) L=lift needed to support the aircraft at normal loaded weight delta W = extra weight added to the aircraft (bombs, etc.) v1 = stall speed with no bombs v2 = stall speed with delta W amount of bombs in other words, you can solve for the normal loaded weight (according to FH) if you can measure the stall speed increase caused by a known load (bombs) and the good news is that there is only one solution to the equation (because the wing area, clmax and atmosphere are held constant between the two flights) the bad news is that even a 250kg bomb increases the stall speed by only a few kmh, which is within the margin of error imo nonetheless i ran a test on my favorite a6m3 with 100% fuel, with and without 2x50kg bombs the stall speed without bombs was 137.95 kmh (i took the speed at clmax on my spreadsheet) the stall speed with bombs was 140.36 kmh i converted the speeds to m/s, and for the equation L/(L+981) = (38.32^2)/(39^2), L = 27397 N or 2793 kg as a check on the math, the clmax levels should be the same for both cases, and both come out to 1.444 so if i did my tests accurately then the a6m has a better lift coefficient than i thought, but the plane is about 250kg heavier than the weight i have for it (2544 kg loaded) this why the lift coefficient numbers were lower in my earlier posts, because i thought the wing was supporting a smaller load (making less lift) when it stalled does anyone else care? i feel like i'm shouting in an echo chamber here
Hi! I carefully watch for yours message. Do not think that you're doing your calculations wrong. I can only say that the method of theoretical calculations for modeling the behavior of the aircraft can be used only for verification. And it has little to model fit, as the mathematical model inside the game - originally made so that direct substitution derived from calculations of data impossible. For writing this letter to use this service to Google translation from Russian into English. My English proficiency is not so good, that used to debate at a level that would understand me correctly
@fas: Thank you for your reply. I'm beginning to understand that one can not take numbers from real life and make changes to Warbirds. I think I'm doing what you said is possible: one can take numbers from the game and compare them to real life. If I understand you correctly, you were saying that Warbirds tests will check the parameters used in the game (though they differ from theory). It is very easy to do the tests I have been doing, so maybe it is possible to: a. change Warbirds parameters, b. test the changes and c. repeat a and b until they match well-known figures. Does this take too much time and effort to accomplish? Or does this have unpredictable consequences (like changing parameters to increase speed affects aileron effectiveness)? I tried to phrase this so it kept its meaning when google translated it to English --> Russian --> English.
Hello guys! Does anyone here knows how many time a Zeke (A6M-5) gets to 360º ? Who read my post about C.202 and C.205 ? I was talkin about different planes in FH that NO ONE USES. @fas I'm sure that N1K series are totally wrong here. No one flies them 'cause it really sucks. Like C.202 and C.205. Can I help u with caractheristics? I have reliable sources here that stated: N1K1 and N1K2 had the same turn time of A6M-5, with reduced turn radius. Roll rate and manouvering excellent, thanks to the combat flaps and and about 2,000 hp. It was better than Ki-84, but was eclipsed by the production numbers of the last. An instance occurred when a single Japanese pilot, Warrant Officer Konsuke Muto, fought off 12 Hellcats, shooting down four. See? Here in FH we cannot shoot even a P-47, wich N1K was faster!! Kawanishi N1K1-J Shidden Georges Engine: Nakajima Homaré 21, 18 cilynders, double wasp, two stage booster Empty Weight: 2,897 kg Wingspan: 12.0 meters Length: 8.89 meters Height: 4.06 meters Wing area: 23.5 m² Wing Loading: 166.0 kg/m² Clmb rate: 1300m/min Power loading: 2.0kg/hp Max speed @ alt: 594km/h @ 6000 m Kawanishi N1K2-J Shidden-Kai Engine: Nakajima Homaré 21, 18 cilynders, double wasp, two stage booster Empty Weight: 2,657 kg Wingspan: 11.0 meters Length: 9.35 meters Height: 3.96 meters Wing area: 23.5 m² Wing Loading: 170.2 kg/m² Clmb rate: 1300m/min Power loading: 2.4kg/hp Max speed @ alt: 680km/h @ 5600 m Great planes to fight with high alts! Need big maps Soon I'll bring C.202, C.205 and G.55 data
about N1K: there was the thread about N1K, data and sources included (present from TW admins), but fh admins said that data are not correct or just counted (i can't remember) and nothing happend, typical solution like with Spit Vb etc. Dunno where's that toppic now... prolly deleted. Better do something meaningful...for example look to the wall.
Perhaps I didn't understood the translation, What can we do for N1K1/K2 and C.202/205? Do u agree with me that they're wrong?
Go to Wiki and read the discussion page. It was 10 Shidens vs 12 Hellcats. The 4 Hellcats lost were not all downed by the same guy. Maybe it was in some altitude bands, but absolute top-speed wise, the P-47 was faster (roughly 700 km/h at high alt). That said, I do agree that, except in decidedly favorable situations, the N1K is a lame duck in FH. The various Ki's are much more fearful opponents.
listen to your arguments. memoirs are nifty, but... what about tigers exploding from jug's brownings? not yet. please explain.
Hi all! Tnx exec, now we can build up a constructive thread! Sorry man, didn't understood... ok! 1) antred's quote 2) The turn time and turn radius aren't good 3) The turn time isn't the same as Zero A6M5 4) The plane itself isn't agile, don't have a good roll rate (it had at least better roll rate that Ki-84, better turning habilities than Ki-84) In rlty it had combat flaps, surface ailerons 5) Plane's climb rate is poor 6) Acceleration and end speed are low (I can't even reach a Seafire on the deck or above 2k) 7) It's a lame duck, couldn't even turn with a F6F 8) Armor itself isn't good. The N1K was the better armoured jap fighter, and here it seems like a A6M when hited by some bullets 9) The N1K-J evenly matched the F6F Hellcat and was a better match than the A6M Zero for such aircraft as the F4U Corsair and P-51 Mustang. 10) Assigned the Allied codename "George", the N1K-J was considered by both its pilots and opponents to be one of the finest land-based fighters flown by the Japanese during World War II. I think that all ppl agree with me that Ki-84 is the best jap fighter of FH. N1K1/K2 don't even reach the level of "Good planes to Fly With" 11) Tried it on IL-2 1946' (N1K2-Ja). When you put some G on plane, the flaps act immediately and help on manouvers. 12) The engine had Water-Methanol injection (plus 2 stage boost) Conclusion: a excelent plane, excelent fighter.
you'll never convince exec btw, why does our Spit Vb have to be in trop version exec? http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?p=452905 that's the other discussion we had, this time fatale was fighting you guys how did that turn out? o yeah, I remember, you didn't give a fuck
